On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:26:01PM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote:

> Hi,


> So, my opinion is that we should definitely have jack2 in squeeze,
> because it seems to be better (that is more features, and as stable as
> jack1) and apparently is what the upstream recommends as well. FWIW I've
> been using it daily for nearly one year, and also used for a few
> production projects.
> Adrian, what's your take at this point? I guess as far as jack is
> concerned you're one of the most knowledgeable among us.

I completely agree with you: it has more features, it is stable, and I'm
also using it instead of jackd1.

If you don't fear the lack of Debian-wide testing, go ahead and upload
1.9.5 to unstable. The users would probably appreciate this.

I see three open issues:

   * FFADO port naming needs to be redone. Upstream issue, I'll take care.

   * copy manpages from jackd1 package to jackd2. Anybody can do this. ;)

   * audio.conf handling. Right now, it cannot be tweaked by the user.
     Sure it can, but the package will overwrite it on updates. Though
     this will be fine in almost all cases (we provide a sensible
     default), it's clearly a policy violation. In the git repo, I have
     a dpkg approach, but that's inferior to ucf.

     If somebody with lots of conffile experience is around, feel free
     to implement it correctly. ;)


mail: a...@thur.de      http://adi.thur.de      PGP/GPG: key via keyserver

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to